Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Essentially, the argument I heard Carrier give was that every black hole, when enough matter has fallen into it and been put under sufficient pressure, may in fact spawn a sort of 'big bang' event on it's 'opposite' side (when things have been brought to a point) and create a new universe. The univer it creates eventually forms it's own black holes, which repeat this process, and so every universe that is spawn is basically it's own universe-factory.

Uh. If I have that right, isn't that a 'problem', so to speak, in terms of what we know of thermodynamics? Such a system would be violating entropy, wouldn't it?

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

I'm not sure I'll contribute anything useful at this point but I do remember reading a similar paper a while back postulating that black holes may contain universes and, thus, that also meant our universe existed within a black hole... I'll see if I can rustle it up. Maybe it has answers to the entropy question.

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss

Yup, I've also recently read something proposing that our universe actually resides within a black hole. If we're speaking strictly of thermodynamics, I've often wondered about that as well.

Actually, now that I think of it, the first time I ever heard such a postulation was from Sagan during the Cosmos series/book. If I'm recalling correctly he said something to the effect of, if you want to know what it's like within a black hole just take a look around you. But he then countered, sort of, talking about not knowing whether the universe was open or closed and other stuff I am no doubt forgetting. It's been a while since I last sat down and watched it.

I believed it was first proposed by Lee Simlion. He critizes string theory for being based on speculation and as of now is unfalsifiable, and then proposes this theory which is speculation and as of now unfalsifiable.

I believed it was first proposed by Lee Simlion. He critizes string theory for being based on speculation and as of now is unfalsifiable, and then proposes this theory which is speculation and as of now unfalsifiable.

Kind of like information gods?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

A scenario which avoids problems with entropy assumes that new Universes may trigger from some tiny particle or virtual particle fluctuation within an old Universe, that tiny bit of an old, high entropy Universe will contain a negligible share of all the spread-out entropy of the old Universe, so the new universe will be starting off with very small entropy again, thus avoiding any problem with that infamous Law.

This was presented within the idea of the ultimate fate of the Universe being the Big Rip, where the accelerating rate of expansion which we seem to see today eventually lead to widely dispersed residual clumps of 'ordinary' matter in a Universe dominated by Dark Energy and maybe dark matter, within which occasionally the quantum jitters occasionally crossed the threshold to trigger a new Big Bang event and a new Universe budded off.

I believed it was first proposed by Lee Simlion. He critizes string theory for being based on speculation and as of now is unfalsifiable, and then proposes this theory which is speculation and as of now unfalsifiable.

Kind of like information gods?

You're right Hamby, how could I possibly retain my belief with that hard hitting comment?

You're right Hamby, how could I possibly retain my belief with that hard hitting comment?

By remaining ignorant.

Duh.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Oh, and before you do, I have no problem with you getting down on string theory. I'm not a mathematician, and all I can do is go on what I've read, which is very little. To me, it sounds like an untestable theory, and you would be right to get upset if anyone claims it as anything more than a potentially plausible theory.

Having said that, I also happen to know a few physicists, and from what I understand, even though string theory is entirely theoretical, it is not without its own math. That is, once you make your initial (unfounded) assumptions, the whole thing works out pretty nicely.

So you tell me, Pineapple, is an incoherent definition of an unnecessary (and ultimately confounding) god the same thing as a mathematically supported theory that might be true if certain very well educated guesses about the universe turn out to be true, and if true, would parsimoniously explain currently unanswered questions?

Don't just gloss over that, Pineapple. God doesn't answer any questions. It just makes things more difficult to answer. It is the opposite of parsimonious. Outside of making you feel good about your life in some mysterious way, the god concept does nothing for cosmology.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Oh, and before you do, I have no problem with you getting down on string theory. I'm not a mathematician, and all I can do is go on what I've read, which is very little. To me, it sounds like an untestable theory, and you would be right to get upset if anyone claims it as anything more than a potentially plausible theory.

Having said that, I also happen to know a few physicists, and from what I understand, even though string theory is entirely theoretical, it is not without its own math. That is, once you make your initial (unfounded) assumptions, the whole thing works out pretty nicely.

I wasn't trying to "go down" on string theory. I actually kinda like the idea in fact.

Quote:

So you tell me, Pineapple, is an incoherent definition of an unnecessary (and ultimately confounding) god the same thing as a mathematically supported theory that might be true if certain very well educated guesses about the universe turn out to be true, and if true, would parsimoniously explain currently unanswered questions?

Not really.

Quote:

Don't just gloss over that, Pineapple. God doesn't answer any questions. It just makes things more difficult to answer. It is the opposite of parsimonious. Outside of making you feel good about your life in some mysterious way, the god concept does nothing for cosmology.

Since I'm not really proposing it as a cosmology theory, it not doing anything for cosmology is irrelevant (see I can use big words too...)

At least 'branes' and strings are entities based on mathematical extrapolation from known physics, and sure, we can still hypothesise how they originated.

Whereas a powerful sentient being capable of willing the Universe into existence is a pointless idea from every angle: it goes way beyond anything we observe in nature, with even the most elaborate instrumentation, and the whole idea of 'explaining' where anything comes from by just positing something vastly more 'powerful', with attributes way beyond the 'created' object, leads to a monstrous regression problem, ie, 'where did God come from' ???

Whereas with modern science, we have pretty good evidence that complexity, and what appears to the naive viewer as signs of 'intelligent' creation, can emerge from simpler elements.

What we don't really find in nature are what would be actual fingerprints of conscious power intervening in our reality, which would be events which are neither random, chaotic, nor clearly the consistent, determined outcome of other events, IOW something which appears to behave one way or another on a cosmic 'whim'.

Pineapple, Bob has done a good job of explaining why "Goddidit" is a nonsense answer, but try to think about this another way. No matter what you define as "god," you're still going to be obliged to explain what god came from. Once you explain that, you're going to have to explain what that came from, and so on, and so on.

What we're trying to get you to understand is that there is a two part problem with inserting intelligence somewhere into the mix.

1) It's extraneous and doesn't answer any questions. Even if there were an intelligence, you need an explanation for that. Are you just going to keep postulating gods which created the gods which created the gods which created the gods? Eventually, you have to face the fact that there's an epistemological brick wall beyond which all we can do is shrug our shoulders and admit we haven't the foggiest idea.

2) Intelligence is complex. The universe began with simplicity. To postulate intelligence, you must go against all the laws of physics, biology, and logic by proposing that complexity came first.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Wow, cool thread folks. Better understanding black holes and gravity, as now we are even exploring on a QM level, will obviously answer many questions ... and heck, maybe even bring a reasonable beginning to a "theory of everything", where even consciousness may possibly be re-defined in physics terms to include all energy/matter to some always present constant degree. (maybe ???)

On a number line, some how organized of all that we know exists, at what point would we mark the spot where conscious begins? Geezz, is my question just messed up??? I don't mean consciousness as we generally define it, but instead more like on a ever present constant gravity level. Hell, I can't even form the question properly. I need more science ....

Please please, hurry up scientists ... I am nearly dead, and we dummies want to know, darn it. What the fuck am I ... as I mean what is g-awe-d.

Please please, hurry up scientists ... I am nearly dead, and we dummies want to know, darn it. What the fuck am I ... as I mean what is g-awe-d.

I wouldn't hold your breath, IAGAY.

It's probable that we won't ever know exactly what the whole deal with the universe is (...and that's part of the allure, really). Just too much to figure out within a very finite span of time.

Fortunately, that also means that we'll always be kept entertained.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."